LeperColony

I wasn't even able to get Archie in my Gencon order (he was replaced by the green note of doom, so I suppose he'll arrive eventually).

This is an incorrect analysis. I'm not saying you should accept sex because you accept violence. I'm saying violence is generally recognized as being worse than consensual sex, and so standards that treat sex more harshly than violence are hypocritical. When you say you'll gladly play a game where you murder someone, but you won't do it if the bit of plastic has a skirt above the knee, you are choosing to hold depictions of violence to a much lower standard. It's also related to power dynamics to determine what clothing is appropriate for female models in the first place. Who are you to define proper clothing for anyone other than yourself? Why is it more acceptable to be a male demon in plate mail than a female demon in a bikini? But that's an entirely different can of worms. Whereas the violence aspect is definitely more equal opportunity (everyone dies in Malifaux, sometimes more than once). People who want to restrict some depictions (typically sex, but in this instance also cultural) while permitting others often fall back on this "I'm not going to go on a killing spree defense." It's not only questionable because, as I mentioned, it treats worse acts with less rigor than things that are "less bad," maybe not bad at all, and even potentially positive but also it's fundamentally an argument from privilege. Many people do not find violence (which doesn't have to be murder) as distant as sex or racism.

Yes, this is the standard refrain. And there's some truth to it. Playing a game with violence is not going to make you violent. But playing a game with short skirts is not going to make you promiscuous. In fact, as numerous studies have proven, abstinence-only education and pretending sex doesn't exist is ineffective. That's one reason why the Bible Belt consistently has among the highest (and often the highest) rates of divorce, teen pregnancy and abortion in the United States. As you noted, images have power. Sex and violence are two of the most provocative images there are. But the reality is you've chosen to desensitize yourself to one (or hypersensitize yourself to the other). Now, to be sure, you are entirely within your rights to define your own comfort levels. And to base those sentiments on whatever value systems or justifications as you find prudent. Although I feel it's important to point out that you are not calling for the models you personally dislike to be banned, and you're not asserting an objective issue with them, but rather you are articulating why your subjective experience with them is negative. In other words, you're not trying to press your assessment on other people. That's different than the cultural appropriation argument, because the underlying assertion there is that if the models indeed are culturally exploitative, then they are in an objective sense and should be changed or eliminated. To the extent I have any issue with the Malifaux models, it's two fold. One, I think minority groups are shown as "model minorities," which is a dynamic that is less harmful than others to be sure, but it's still less-than-ideal. And I also take issue with giving the Edwardian period a pass by skating over the very real oppression of racial, gender, sexual orientations, religious and cultural groups. For instance, someone in the Explorer's Society forum suggested a British explorer and African porter type master/totem duo. That's a team that will probably never get made, because of obvious concerns with the imagery. But to me, rather than omitting it and pretending the world of Malifaux doesn't see color, I would be more proud to support a company that did root these issues in the setting.

It's a creepy world of tragedy and murder. People are more than happy to play a game with violence and killing, but they balk at plastic skin or wring their hands at perceived cultural insensitivity. Frankly, I've always found this to be hypocrisy, and once one has accepted they are more than happy to simulate murder and mayhem, the platform for further pontification seems fairly flimsy. If anything, I think the sanitization of Victorian/Edwardian social and cultural inequities in games like Malifaux and Through the Breach are greater sins than models with short skirts or a japanese-themed samurai miniature. Steampunk and alternate history titles almost always ride right past the various forms of oppression (racial, gender, sexual, religious, cultural, etc) and instead we see empowered women and racial equality assumed as a given. I think this "Edwardian Narnia," (to borrow the phrase from a great PBS show) where class is the only distinction that is depicted, does far more to minimize and even trivialize the harm and marginalization faced by minorities. As an Asian person, I'm not the least bit offended by the Chinese and Japanese models. But what does sort of bother me is the wholesale importation of modern sensibilities into the setting, because I think ignoring bias is worse than depicting it. Not that my opinion carries more weight because of some genetic accident that resulted in me being Chinese. But I've just never understood this dynamic.

Haha, I completely misread the upgrade. I thought the summoned raptor gained the !

Are you talking about the Austringer? It's mostly for run and gun and potentially the heal, I don't ever see using the over making a trap or dust cloud. Since he doesn't have any movement tricks, I felt combining moving and shooting would be efficient for actions. It might not be worth it.

At least he got a few days of attention out of it!

I'm going to be trying a pretty straightforward Frontier crew for my first game tonight: Cor Basse + LLC Bern Basse Reichart + LLC Pathfinder + No Prisoners Frontiersman Austringer Crockett trap trap trap I've been looking over the cards, and the Austringer seems a little...underwhelming. Am I missing something?

Malifaux / TOS at Lost Planet in Torrance, California: Saturday, 1 pm Anyone of any experience level is welcome! If you're an old pro, come by and play. If you're just through the breach, we can teach the game and provide all materials. Hope to see you there!

The steward seems to be virtually an auto-include.

This is my understanding as well, which means that the damage is inflicted simultaneously to all models.

Sorry for the double post, but this is a very important point. Knowing the match ups is important, and it's an element of player skill. It's good that people win games when they understand the dynamic and can respond accordingly. It could certainly be true that the strength of masters varies across different "skill tiers," however impossible such levels may be to define. But it also would be helpful to really understand what we mean by "overpowered." If a master requires a specific counter strategy, and would be rated favorably outside of it, is that master overpowered? Underpowered? Balanced? It's tempting to say overpowered is simply the same as over performing. A master that wins more than it loses is overpowered. But that's not really how it works. Not all masters are equally simple to play, the scheme and strategy pool is not exactly level for all masters, etc. I am suspicious of nerf calls, especially this early. But a consensus does seem to be emerging that Zoraida is one of the better performing masters, and I wouldn't be surprised if her trigger had a lot to do with it. Malifaux is fundamentally a game of resources, the chief of which is action points (though they technically don't exist anymore, they essentially do just everything costs either 0 or 1 AP). Anything which gets you extra AP is going to have the potential to be very strong.

Sure, but that's an even more expensive method, and maybe I misunderstood his report, but my impression was that Colette was just going all over the place. 12" covers a lot of the board, especially with idols where you can affect the placement of the strategy markers. If the arcanist player's highest priority is to avoid a voodoo doll, area denial becomes much easier simply by using Zoraida as a null zone. Somehow the idea that a specifically anti-Zoraida crew is strong against Zoraida doesn't surprise me, and I'm a little confused why you're talking as though it should be. If a crew's plan is to not interact, they also can't stop you. This dynamic is not unique to Zoraida. It's common to any match up where one side has a plan based on avoidance, and the counter to avoidance is careful target selection, area denial, running your own VPs, and strategy/scheme specific tactics like cheating for initiative to control idol placement. It sounds like the Arcanist had a specific tactical plan, and the Zoraida player didn't adapt to the changed situation. Or, in other words, a game of Malifaux. It doesn't establish that Zoraida is suddenly balanced (or overpowered, or underpowered), and it doesn't mean that Zoraida just loses to these crew types. Of course getting rolled is never fun, regardless of the means. And, certainly, the very concept of "fun" is subjective. However, we have decades of experience with control mechanics in gaming, and they are consistently cited as being unpleasant to a large part of the player base. It's not really hard to consider why. Their entire strategy is based around denying the opponent any chance to do anything. So, many people find it feels less interactive or less enjoyable. Somehow if I have a 2/2 bear and you have a 2/2 spider, but you boost your spider by +1/+1 and it kills my bear, that feels more interactive than if you just counterspell my bear. Is it in reality? Maybe, maybe not. I've said several times control mechanics are legitimate, some people enjoy playing them, and they should exist. But I fully understand why people don't enjoy facing them, and so I am not surprised that a control master with a high stat and very strong trigger is the source of complaints.

No crew is invincible. And because of Malifaux's rock-paper-scissors dynamic, it's possible for an overperforming master to struggle in particular match ups and still be stronger than the average leader. In fact, an "OP" master could even be countered by a master that is weaker relative to the overall pool. It's not particularly surprising that a custom anti-Zoraida list performed effectively against her, but I also see a few details that indicate the Zoraida player could have made other choices. For instance, he says Colette was teleporting all over, but if you don't attack her she can't use her bury/unbury mechanic and presto-chango, while powerful, is not as effective for moving "anywhere" (so I'm assuming it wasn't the effect the Zoraida player struggled against). I've used Diesel Engine in this match up as well, and it's a good pick. But there are options, for instance putting the Voodoo Doll on the Coryphee. Since Coryphee have poor WP, they're pretty easy to boss around if you're not trying at . Is Zoraida overpowered? I don't know that I can say she is. But she is strong in a mechanic many people (myself included, to a lesser degree) simply don't enjoy facing. Regardless of the results, it makes the game "less fun" to players with these sentiments. Now, as it happens, I do believe her trigger would benefit from adjustment, and if it were up to me, I'd have preferred if the resulting action had restrictions (maybe move only or action is at reduced stat or ), because it's not particularly difficult to pull off and it can really put you ahead in the actions attrition game.

I'd agree with that as well, so long as the adaptation isn't because the model is horribly broken.

I fully agree that post-release, models shouldn't be errata'ed willy-nilly. It should take something beyond superior performance. But "we don't need errata because everyone can just agree to not play them" seems to me to be a good reason to make an errata.

I do think that generally speaking the game would benefit from more details on Ability timing specifically, and probably a more elaborate "stack-like" system similar to TCGs. In this particular case, I believe the model will suffer black blood damage. "After this model suffers damage..." is a timing indicator. So it happens after the prerequisite event. But it happens before subsequent effects of the same ability. It essentially "cuts in." Because you resolve effects "in the order presented on the card," you need to fully resolve the damage and any other consequences of the damage before moving on to the next effect. The alternative would have the black blood occur after the push, and not after the damage. That's my opinion, at any rate.

Any friendly, but you can ignore the LoS and range on buried.

Obey is powerful in general. But also, control effects are designed, by their very nature, to produce negative play experience. Now, to be clear, they're perfectly legitimate and there's nothing wrong with including them. They also appeal to a particular class of player, who definitely deserves the opportunity to play it. However, if it works, what it does is reduce or entirely eliminate not just counterplay, but play of any sort from your opponent. Zoraida combines a powerful obey effect with high stat, a very effective trigger, extended range and the potential to draw LoS around terrain. This is not to say she is necessarily overpowered, but she is incredibly strong in a mechanic many people don't like playing against, which no doubt increases the sense of unfairness one may feel when facing her.

Malifaux at Lost Planet in Torrance on Saturday, 1 pm!

Shotgun to the face is always fun. Also, I think the Basse box is a good purchase because I could potentially see Reichart in other crews too.

I don't know myself, but in my game against Som'er who draws a lot of cards, she could be useful if she can be kept close enough and yet alive...

Have you tried Lust in the crew?

Except the ability itself provides for its timing rules. That's what "Enemies that start their Activation do X" means. "Start their activation" is a timing indicator. It doesn't say "during the Start Activation" phase. If it did, then yes, any model that came within the aura during the phase, whether or not at the model's start, would be effected. But instead, it indicates a specific timing in the ability itself. Just like if an ability says "after this model takes a , discard a card to take the action again," the timing rules are built in (after taking the action). Out of curiosity, using your reading, how would you phrase an ability that only effected models at the actual beginning of their activation? That is, an effect that only occurs if it meets a particular condition only at the snapshot in time when you activate them?

Except you're not, because I literally explained how you mischaracterized it. You believe "start of activation" means that you resolve everything that happens before any action takes place, regardless of how much time passes or how many effects occur. You believe "start of activation" is not a timing requirement, but a phase indicator. You do these things in this phase. If someone comes within Hamelin's at any point before an action is taken, then the aura generates its effect. I believe "start of activation" means the conditions that exist at the moment of activation are resolved, but not subsequent effects that have "start of activation" timing because they were not legal at the actual, literal start. I believe "start of activation" is a timing requirement, and if the effect would not be legal at the moment of activation, it cannot subsequently be legal. But we both believe these effects are resolved in the "Start of Activation" phase. I can't decide if you're intentionally obtuse or if the distinction really is unappreciated, but again, it seems distinctly unlikely any movement will be achieved towards consensus.